dbrooks@osf.org (David Brooks) (07/02/90)
In article <3590@auspex.auspex.com>, guy@auspex.auspex.com (Guy Harris) writes: > Well, actually, OSF apparently now has a certification process for > toolkits, so they've finally realized that "The Toolkit is *NOT* the > Look&Feel". Given that there are non-Xm toolkits under development (and > some may already exist) that offer a Motif L&F, this would seem to be a > sensible acknowledgment of reality.... The separation between Appearance/Behavior and implementation has been there from the beginning, although it's easy to be distracted from that by the focus on the Xt-based implementation that we ship. It was explicit in our Request For Technology in fall '88; it's highlighted by our PM-compliant behavior rule; it's spelled out in the introduction to our (much-maligned) Style Guide; and the two-level trademark certification process was announced at a press conference July 11, 1989. Admittedly this is turning out rather slow in implementation. Also, one of the more popular Motif-compliant applications is implemented without our reference toolkit. So we've been in touch with reality all along. -- David Brooks dbrooks@osf.org Systems Engineering, OSF uunet!osf.org!dbrooks
guy@auspex.auspex.com (Guy Harris) (07/04/90)
>It was explicit in our Request For Technology in fall '88; it's >highlighted by our PM-compliant behavior rule; it's spelled out in the >introduction to our (much-maligned) Style Guide; Err, well, what said introduction says is: This *Style Guide* was written for three audiences: Application developers ... Widget developers ... Window manager developers ... Although the bit about "Widget developers" does *seem* to allow for the possibility of a new widget set other than Xm ("...a widget set consistent with the OSF/Motif user interface."), it doesn't offer much comfort to anybody, say, trying to tweak the Andrew Toolkit to offer a Motif-like user interface, nor, I suspect, to the Solbourne folks doing OI. In other words, perhaps "Widget developers" should be replaced by "Toolkit developers" and appropriately rewritten, unless the intent is to anathematize all X toolkits not based on the Xt Intrinsics.... >and the two-level trademark certification process was announced at a >press conference July 11, 1989. Well, to quote Tom LaStrange (whose observation was also made by another person in email to me): > I just got the certification package and from what I can tell it is to > certify a port of Xm to a given vendor's hardware. It is an API certification > process, not a "Look&Feel" certification process. So it seems that the > only certified OSF/Motif toolkits will be Xm ports. If I have interpreted > this wrong I would certainly like someone from OSF to let me know. So did he interpret it wrong, or is the certification in question basically a test to make sure your system software (compiler, kernel, system libraries, Xlib) aren't broken and that you haven't tampered with the source to Xm, or does the "two-level trademark certification process" offer one level for Xm ports and another for toolkits written from scratch (and not necessarily Xt-based)?
mhn@hpfcdc.HP.COM (Mark Notess) (07/10/90)
> (A side question - Will DecWindows and NewWave be phased out when > they ship Motif?) HP has been shipping Motif for quite some time; the Motif issue is orthogonal to the NewWave issue--apples and oranges. Motif is a way to do windows and controls; NewWave is a way for applications to be more intelligently integrated. At least that's my view (I'm a consumer of both and a developer of neither). Mark Notess mhn@hpfcla.fc.hp.com --my opinions only, not those of-- Hewlett-Packard
klee@wsl.dec.com (Ken Lee) (07/10/90)
|> (A side question - Will DecWindows and NewWave be phased out when |> they ship Motif?) DECwindows is larger (functionally) than Motif. DEC has announced a schedule for replacing the appropriate parts of DECwindows with Motif and porting all application programs to Motif. I forget the details, but it's something like "by the end of this year". Ken Lee DEC Western Software Laboratory, Palo Alto, Calif. Internet: klee@wsl.dec.com uucp: uunet!decwrl!klee